Punjab

Ludhiana

CC/20/324

Indu Verma - Complainant(s)

Versus

National Insurance Co. - Opp.Party(s)

Kamaljeet Singh Adv.

03 Nov 2022

ORDER

DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, LUDHIANA.

                                                Complaint No:324 dated 02.12.2020                                                         Date of decision: 03.11.2022.

 

Indu Verma aged 60 years w/o Sh.Anil Verma s/o Sh.Krishan Lal Verma r/o House No.154, Block-A, Near Kali Mata Mandir, Rishi Nagar, Ludhiana.                                                                                            ..…Complainant

 

National Insurance Company Limited., through its Manager, Divisional Office-III, Kochar Market, Ludhiana.                                                                                                                                                         …..Opposite party

         

          Complaint under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act.

QUORUM:

SH. K.K. KAREER, PRESIDENT

SH. JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

 

COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES:

For complainant            :         Sh.Parmod Kumar, Advocate

For OP                           :         Sh.R.K.Chand, Advocate

 

ORDER

PER JASWINDER SINGH, MEMBER

1.                Briefly stated, the case of the complainant is that she is the owner of Hyundai Verna car bearing registration No.PB-22-F-0511. The said car was got insured from the OP vide policy cover note No.39010231196100003009 which was valid from 03.05.2019 to 02.05.2020. The car of the complainant met with an accident on 01.12.2019 at Partap Singh Wala, Ludhiana whereby the car was damaged. The complainant lodged the claim of Rs.85,899/- with the OP in respect of the loss caused to the car as per bill/invoice issued by the Goyal Automotives Pvt. Ltd., village Jugiana, G.T. Ludhiana. At the time of accident, the vehicle was being driven by Anil Verma who is the husband of the complainant. Anil Verma was having a valid driving license bearing No.PB-1020070144252 issued by the DTO, Ludhiana. The said license was initially valid upto 19.10.2017 and thereafter, it was got renewed on 01.11.2017 by depositing the requisite fee and DTO, Ludhiana issued the renewed license to the complainant which was valid upto 18.10.2022. The complainant submitted the documents as required by the surveyor i.e. UPS Sachdeva & Co. vide letter dated 07.12.2019. The OP issued a letter dated 31.12.2019 informing the complainant that the license of the husband is valid only upto 18.10.2017 and the period of renewal was not visible. The complainant sent the replies vide letters dated 13.01.2020 and 19.02.2020 stating that the license was renewed from the concerned authority by depositing the renewal fee in the month of October/November 2017 from Suvidha Centre, Guru Arjun Dev Nagar, Ludhiana and due to some technical reasons, the online entry of renewal was not updated. However, the OP repudiated the claim illegally and arbitrary vide letter dated 15.05.2020 on the ground that the husband of the complainant was not having a valid driving license at the time of accident. The repudiation of claim on this ground is illegal and arbitrary and amounts to deficiency of service on the part of the OP. In the end, it has been requested that the OP be directed to reimburse the claim of Rs.85,899/- and further the OP be made to pay compensation of Rs.50,000/- and litigation expenses of Rs.11,000/-.

2.                The complaint has been resisted by the OP. In the written statement filed on behalf of OP, it has been, inter alia, pleaded that there has been no deficiency of service on the part of the OP. According to the OP, immediately on receipt of the claim, it was registered and processed. M/s U.P.S.Sachdeva & Company, Surveyor and Loss Assessor was deputed for survey and assessment of loss and for verification of the documents. The surveyor inspected the vehicle and took the photographs and collected the documents and submitted the final report dated 24.12.2019 along with the documents. The surveyor assessed the loss of Rs.47,400/- subject to the terms and conditions of the policy. The surveyor through its representative also got verified the driving license No.PB-1020070144252 dated 19.10.2007 of Dr.Anil Verma son of Sh.Krishan Lal Verma from the Regional Transport Authority, Ludhiana and found that the driving license was valid only from 19.10.2012 to 18.10.2017 as per record. The surveyor submitted the verification report dated 24.12.2019 along with report issued by the RTA Ludhiana. After receipt of the final survey report, the claim of the complainant was duly scrutinized in terms of the insurance policy and it was not found payable and was repudiated vide pre-repudiation letter dated 31.12.2019 which was self explanatory. The OP has further pleaded that vide letter dated 31.12.2019, the complainant was further asked to submit reply/clarification regarding the driving license within 15 days from the receipt of the letter but the complainant failed to reply to the letter dated 31.12.2019. As a result, the claim was finally repudiated vide letter dated 15.05.2020. In this manner, the claim has been rightly repudiated and it cannot be said to be a case of deficiency of service on the part of the OP. The rest of the averments made in the complaint have been denied as wrong and a prayer for dismissal of the complaint has also been made.

3.                In evidence, the complainant submitted her affidavit Ex.CA along with documents Ex.C1 to Ex.C12 and closed the evidence.

4.                On the other hand, OP submitted affidavit Ex.RW1/A of Ms.Kanchan Bansal, Divisional Manager of OP along with documents Ex.R1 to Ex.R33 and closed the evidence.

5.                We have heard the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties and have also gone through record.

6.                In this case, the claim has been rejected by the OP on the basis of the surveyor report Ex.R4 wherein it has been mentioned that on verification of the driving license particulars vide online system the driving license of driver Dr.Anil Verma was found valid upto 18.10.2017 only. It is further mentioned in the surveyor report Ex.R4 that the particulars of the driving license were got verified from the DTO Office, Ludhiana manually also and it was found to be valid only upto 18.10.2017 and as such on the date of accident, the driving license had not been renewed and, therefore, the same was not valid. The OP has relied upon verification report Ex.R5 wherein it is stated by the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Ludhiana that driving license was valid from 19.10.2012 to 18.10.2017. The OP has further relied upon another certificate Ex.R7 downloaded from the site of Ministry of Road Transport & Highways, Government of India which also shows that the driving license expired on 18.10.2017. As against this, the complainant has placed on record the copy driving license Ex.C4 which shows that the driving license was valid upto 18.10.2022. The complainant has further relied upon receipt attached with Ex.C4 dated 1.11.2017 whereby an amount of Rs.520/- is said to have been deposited on account of renewal of driving license. It is, therefore, evident from the document Ex.C4 that renewal of the driving license was duly applied as on 1.11.2017 and payment of Rs.520/- was also made on account of renewal fee. Therefore, it cannot be said that at the time of accident on 01.12.2019, the husband of the complainant had not got the driving license renewed. The counsel for the complainant has further placed on record another certificate dated 24.10.2021 issued by the Licensing Authority, Ludhiana wherein also under the column of ‘validity details’ the license is said to have been valid from 19.10.2017 to 18.10.2022 and under the column of ‘validity gap period(if any)’,  the column has been left blank which means that there has not been any gap period during which license might have not been renewed. Therefore, the rejection of the claim on the ground that the driver of the vehicle at the time of accident was not holding a valid driving license cannot be said to be justifiable by any stretch of imagination. In the given circumstances, in our considered view it would be just and appropriate, if the OP is directed to consider and reimburse the claim of the complainant strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy and also in accordance with the surveyor report along with composite compensation and litigation costs of Rs.7,000/-.

7.                As a result of above discussion, the complaint is allowed with a direction to OP to consider and reimburse the claim of the complainant strictly in accordance with the terms and conditions of the policy and also in accordance with the surveyor report. OP shall further pay a composite compensation and litigation cost of Rs.7,000/- (Rupees Seven Thousand only) to the complainant. Compliance of the order be made within 30 days from the date of receipt of copy of order. Copies of order be supplied to parties free of costs as per rules. File be indexed and consigned to record room.       

8.                Due to rush of work and spread of COVID-19, the case could not be decided within statutory period.

 

                             (Jaswinder Singh)                            (K.K. Kareer)

                    Member                                           President

 

Announced in Open Commission.

Dated:03.11.2022.

Gurpreet Sharma.